Does the Paul from the Book of Acts and the Epistles differ? If you ask our liberal buddy Bart Ehrman, he would say YES!!! But of course he would for he holds to the Bauer Thesis. First, let me acknowledge that this debate continues because there are legitimate differences between the Paul portrayed in Acts and the Epistles. For example, Luke pictures Paul as the hero missionary of the early church who championed the mission and overcame every obstacle. The Paul of the Epistles is portrayed as a man who works in the shadow of Christ's redemptive work as a mere servant of Christ, not a celebrity to be admired (Gal 2:20; 1 Cor 2:1-5). Should these differences cause us any alarm? I content they should not. I want to give you six points to show that the Paul of Acts and the Paul of the Epistles were the same man.

Paul's pedigree is one of impeccable Jewish credentials (Phil 3:5-6; Gal 1:14; 2 Cor. 11:22), who was educated by the most famous Jewish scholar of his day, Gamaliel (Acts 22:3; 5:35; 23:6; 26:5).

Before becoming the great missionary, Paul was a persecutor of the church (Acts 8:3; 9:1). In his letters Paul acknowledges his sinful past persecuting the church (Gal 1:13; 1:22-23; 1 Cor. 15:9; Phil 3:6; 1 Tim. 1:13).

Paul supports himself by his own labors and not always from church support (Acts 20:34; 28:3; 1 Thess. 2:9; 2 Thess. 3:7-8; 1 Cor. 9:18).

The missionary pattern of Paul is to go first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46-48; 28:25-28; Rom. 1:16; 2:-9-10; 10:12; 1 Cor. 1:22, 24; 12:13; Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11)

Paul is shown to be able to adapt to Jewish or Gentile settings in preaching the Gospel (cf. 1 Cor. 9:19-23)

Liberals get themselves all worked up when they see any sort of diversity in the Scriptures but seems to plug their ears when evidence to the contrary is pointed out. It does not surprise me at all that Luke pictures Paul a bit different than Paul pictured himself. I'm sure my friend would talk about me in a different light than I would talk about myself. Surely, I would talk about my mentors different than they would talk about themselves. Also, humility demands Paul to not picture himself as a hero or celebrity missionary. Luke even describes Paul as taking this route (Acts 14:11-15). Therefore, we should not be shaken by a bit of diversity.

Oftentimes the music/worship debate is characterized by age. That is, older people like hymns and younger people like contemporary song. But that is simply not true. I, along with many of my peers, actually like hymns and a worship style without all the gimmicks and show. Hymns are also interesting because they generally have stories attached to them. One of my favorite hymns is Blessed Assurance. It was written by a lady named Fanny Crosby. Fanny was born in Putnam County, New York, on March 24, 1820. A poorly trained doctor applied a mustard plaster poultice to her eyes when she was only six weeks old, rendering her totally blind. At an early age she realized she had a gift for song writing. She enrolled in the NY institute for the blind at 15. At graduation they asked her to stay and teach. She taught there for 11 years following her graduation. During her 95-year life she wrote over 8000 Gospel songs. One day in 1873 a friend was visiting and played a tune for Fanny on the piano that she recently wrote. She asked Fanny, “What does this tune say?” After praying for a few minutes, Fanny arose and said, “It says, Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine!”

But do Christians actually walk around on a daily basis with Blessed Assurance in their heart?! Unfortunately, my experience is that they do not. It reminds me of an story I read about the scientist Carl Sagan. A newspaper publisher sent a telegram to a noted astronomer: WIRE COLLECT IMMEDIATELY FIVE HUNDRED WORDS ON WHETHER THERE IS LIFE ON MARS. Sagan replied, “Nobody knows” 250 times. If someone wrote you an email asking, "In 500 words or less write back how you know you would go to heaven today if you died?" Would you email back "nobody knows" 250 times?

I believe there are two extremes when it comes to the view of Assurance of Salvation

Eternal Security--also known as Once Saved Always Saved. There is a lot of historical background to understand this view, so I am forced to truncate it and will inevitably leave out good details. So I encourage you to study it on your own. In reaction to the Roman Catholic view and abuse of indulgences, the Protestant Reformation swung too far on some issues. John Calvin created the acrostic TULIP. Each letter stands for a doctrine. Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. If man it totally unable to choose God and God's grace is irresistible, then surely once man has been chosen by God he cannot fall away. This is the basis of Reformed Theology. They believe, without eternal security, the Bible would describe a situation where Christianity is a perpetual game of Russian Roulette; a life in which condemnation and salvation alternate every time we sin and confess, and we never know if we’re saved or not. I would agree with them that the Bible does not teach a perpetual game of Russian Roulette when it comes to Assurance. But it is too far, IMO, to ignore the plethora of verses that warn of falling away from the faith, in order to create a doctrine that emphasizes assurance.

Eternal Insecurity--This term I made up. Nobody is a champion for this view for everyone believes the Bible exhorts a Christian to have assurance of salvation (1st John 5:13). What happens is people end up mixing law and grace. It creates a legalistic doctrine which chokes out any room for assurance. They live a lifestyle where they are never sure if they are ever good enough to still be saved. It is Galatianism all over again. The problem is when they forget salvation was initially by Grace and continues by Grace. That is, you become a Christian by grace through faith and you remain a Christian by grace through faith. When we focus on our own holiness to give us assurance it is no wonder we are eternally insecure. For we have never been good enough and will never be good enough for salvation. If God did not require us to be perfect to be offered salvation, then why would he require us to be perfect to keep salvation?

But herein sits the problem. As soon as you make a statement emphasizing assurance, people are going to say you are a Calvinist who believes in Eternal Security. Yet, if you emphasize the need for holy living and that grace is not a license to sin (à la. Romans 6), then people will focus on their own righteousness, realize they are not worthy, and lose all sense of assurance. I believe the proper focus is to understand how God views us once we become Christians. That will be the topic of my next post to finish the thoughts here. What is your view of Assurance?